So, there's a bit of a furore in the British press at the moment after some guy on Twitter started naming celebrities who had obtained court injunctions to stop the media revealing details of their private lives; namely extra-marital affairs and that sort of thing.

I don't normally go in for this kind of tabloid-fodder, but, on the other hand, I dislike the idea of people in the public eye doing whatever they like and then using their wealth and influence to hide behind the courts when they get caught out. So, in that case; I find it quite refreshing in a way.

I should note that none of what this guy has posted so far has been confirmed, but that doesn't necessarily make it false either.

So, two issues to be addressed here:

1) Is this individual doing the right thing by revealing this information to the public?

2) Should public figures be allowed to use the courts to cover up their extraneous activities?

BONUS QUESTION: If you were privy to this sort of information; what would you do with it?

I honestly don't care, because it's the price of fame. But they ARE still humans, so we should treat them with some dignity instead of just cashing in on their faults and misery.

Quote by Ulalume

I had a friend who was held at gunpoint as a cashier. The robber told him to give him all the money in the register and what not. Apparently my friend then replied, "Would you like a slurpee with that?"

As long as they aren't doing anything illegal, I fail to see what right any individual has to know about the details of celebrities' lives. Just because they are in the public eye professionally doesn't mean they should be personally. You wouldn't want it announced to the whole world if you were into BDSM (or maybe you would ), why should celebrities be subject to different treatment?

As for that twitter, those are completely unsubstantiated claims. Anyone can make a twitter and claim that a bunch of celebrities did unsavoury things, but that doesn't make it true. The entire tabloid industry does so.

Your OP is a bit wrong. Your title is 'super injuctions', but don't mention what one is.

If a celeb got a super injunction, it means people wouldn't be able to talk about the fact they have one. It's a bit ridiculous really.

This x1000.

The media - yes, all of it, including the sacred Guardian - have been twisting this out of proportion. The most blatant way it's been done is that hacks are using the term 'superinjunction', which is a very specific one and not the issue here at all, to refer to the current controversial privacy injunctions.

Maybe I'm not seeing this right, or just not addressing it, but I think that celebrities shouldn't be able to get away with or hide crimes that regular people would go to jail for. I don't think that personal stuff should be released just to embarrass them though.

If it means that thousands of kids who potentially idolize these stars won't go and mimic the same behavior because it's glitzy and glamorous then yes, it should be suppressed. TBH it's nobodies business but their own anyway, we're each accountable for our own actions.

Depends. In the tabloid-y, celebs' private lives, side of things, IDGAF.

But when Trafigura uses them to cover up dumping toxic waste in Nigeria.... less cool.

But they're different. The celeb-y ones are bog-standard interim injunctions - you can say they exist, you can hint at who has taken them out, you can challenge them in court if you feel you're being unfairly or unjustifiably gagged but that's it. The Trafigura case, the actual super-injunction, was a similar move, but what made it a so-called superinjunction is that you couldn't mention the injunction's existence, hint at who had taken it out or why. Nothing. They took it out because they were afraid that media coverage was going to influence an upcoming trial, which I think is justifiable at a pinch (even though they were clearly doing it to preserve their image and bully the press).

The current fuss is over a completely different issue, and these things getting conflated in the press is either wilfully misleading or lazy hackery. The slebs raises issues of privacy, the bastards raises other matters altogether.

But they're different. The celeb-y ones are bog-standard interim injunctions - you can say they exist, you can hint at who has taken them out, you can challenge them in court if you feel you're being unfairly or unjustifiably gagged but that's it. The Trafigura case, the actual super-injunction, was a similar move, but what made it a so-called superinjunction is that you couldn't mention the injunction's existence, hint at who had taken it out or why. Nothing. They took it out because they were afraid that media coverage was going to influence an upcoming trial, which I think is justifiable at a pinch (even though they were clearly doing it to preserve their image and bully the press).

The current fuss is over a completely different issue, and these things getting conflated in the press is either wilfully misleading or lazy hackery. The slebs raises issues of privacy, the bastards raises other matters altogether.

Aha, OK.

So all the so-called superinjunctions being taken out by slebs aren't actually superinjuctions?

Well the only available avenue against parliamentary privilege is parliament, and I don't see it deciding to legislate that away from itself.

(The other worry is hyperinjunctions. At the moment that's quite murky and the only real report I know of one is here. They would stop you from talking to lawyers and MPs as well as hacks, which is pretty draconian.

The thing is that, as you'll see for yourself, the facts are pretty unclear in that article, and we don't really know why that particular injunction was taken out. For all we know it was ordered because some guy was telling porkies all over the place, so I can't really speculate on that. Thing is, courts want to prevent stuff becoming public knowledge if it affects a trial, which I think is fair enough in all honesty.)

The fundamental thing is that most injunctions are only interim; permanent ones are possible, but they only happen after proper litigation (as in the very recent OPQ v BJM).

EDIT: Er, potentially ignore the stuff in brackets, actually. Reading somewhere that the guy in the toxic paint case actually took a voluntary verbal undertaking, on the advice of his lawyers, not to talk to his MP... so hyperinjunctions simply don't seem to exist. Disregard me, I suck cocks.